Agree. Have you considered writing an improved bill and submitting it to the Missouri legislature? You write well and could help them by proposing better language that will lead to transparency of product information. Just a thought.
Sadie has raised that point above and I appreciate the sentiments, however I'm not even sure if I'd be able to offer anything better. I just find a lot of the legalese and jargon in these bills to be so archaic that it becomes hard to parse sometimes. This one was just easier since it's only 2 pages and is intended to add sections rather than to write in completely new laws. There's also, unfortunately the idea of whether raising criticisms would be seen as being good-faith and trying to parse some of the language or be seen as an attack on the "group". I've raised some criticisms of ideas going on in the vaccine skeptic community or whatever this is, but that can sometimes be seen as "undermining the cause" rather than providing a perspective that may disagree but opens up a wider discourse.
I generally wanted to just provide my thoughts and see what others think of this bill, but I'll also see what transpires as well and see what the eventual discourse will be around this bill.
Yes, the wording needs work. But the main point of required labelling is important. There has been research into vaccines being "edible" (for the common good, of course), vaccines being delivered by mosquitos, and there is definitely research into mRNA vaccines for livestock. Why shouldn't labels contain such information? I would want to know and knowing, make my choice.
From lab grown meat to lab milk for babies, the powers that be would love to be free of those pesky labels.
I'm actually for transparency in labeling products, and I hope people didn't get a different impression.
However, because this is a form of legislation being proposed this runs into many issues of language that can either allow for loopholes or other ways around labeling. That's why I brought up the "vaccines in food" argument for fruits and vegetables. You're not going to get mRNA vaccines into plants- you would instead insert the gene and at that point can it be labeled as a gene therapy product or would it fall under GMO? Because GMO's are already so broad would someone even know what it means to be consuming a GMO product? It's one thing if genes are inserted to make plants grow bigger or taste sweeter, it's another if they are made to produce toxins that act as antimicrobial agents which also affect us as consumers.
That's my general problem with this bill. I'm not sure if it just allows for loopholes due to the ambiguities in the language, or if it would really have an effect on the consumer side. Looking at the bill I'm unsure if any scientists actually laid eyes on it to make sure the terminology and use of words was sound (I certainly won't argue that I have it down or that I know in full what I am speaking about).
The core problem with legislating terms such as "gene therapy product" is that it conflates the mechanism of action with the effect.
As you noted, animal and plant husbandry demonstrably alters the genome, but through selective breeding rather than direct genome modification. mRNA inoculations are not direct genome modification (at least, not intentionally) but use genes to activate an immunological response. So which one is the "gene therapy product"?
Which to my mind makes the legislation not so much based on science but a misapprehension of scientific terminology.
I wrote this because I was curious if this legislation wouldn't already be covered as GMO's, and then that depends upon what is occurring. With animals, there's a feasible argument of mRNA vaccines being used to vaccinate these animals and then there's a question of it getting into our food supply, although that comes with the questions on what processing and cooking would do, let alone if animals would do well with being given these vaccines. But there's no way you get mRNA vaccine lettuce or tomatoes because that's not how protein expression works, and in some of these videos/posts I feel like we are close to reaching that point which is incoherent and speaks of a failure of understanding science. Again, you'd need to insert the gene into the plants to make them then express the mRNA to then produce the protein, but then wouldn't that just be considered a GMO at that point?
So that was my general intent with this post as you commented. I'm curious what information is being used and whether anyone actually helped write the bill, whether 3rd party scientists or someone from the FLCCC, but really if anyone checked to see if the language didn't seem funny.
Oh no, this post actually mentions mRNA vaccine lettuce! 👀
As I commented to Peter and mentioned in my post "mRNA vaccine lettuce" is not feasible, and here it looks like they're just playing off of semantics.
They've already been tinkering with plants to produce various bacterial and viral proteins to act as possible "vaccines", and in the edible vaccines link in my article they outline some of the research and limitations. But in order to produce these proteins the plants would have to produce the mRNA, and to do that they would need to have the intended gene inserted into their genome thus making them GMO's.
So essentially all that article is doing is using language that has already been around but going back one step to mention "mRNA" rather than antigen/protein because it's the in-vogue term.
"The project’s goals, made possible by a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, are threefold: showing that DNA containing the mRNA vaccines can be successfully delivered into the part of plant cells where it will replicate, demonstrating the plants can produce enough mRNA to rival a traditional shot, and finally, determining the right dosage. "
This article is just throwing mRNA vaccines around when all they're saying is that they inserted the gene into lettuce and spinach, and even at that point why not just allow the proteins to be expressed?
The only thing I can think of is that rather than synthesize the mRNA themselves they may try to have plants make the mRNA and then isolate it from the plants.
So I think there's a lot of semantic play going on here.
Yes, I do wonder about some of the published science articles.... guess they have to write about x amount of ideas to keep the $ coming in. Because a lot of it doesn't sound workable in the real world -- like why haven't they cured diseases or genetic disorders if their CRISPR et al works so well? But the fact they even think about doing this is crazy .... those cartoon depictions of the mad scientist at his workbench are too close to reality these days. I do appreciate you delving into the Missouri bill... maybe you could offer your advisor services to the authors of it :)
A lot of what is being written is done from the perspective of following what's going on in the cultural milieu. I've argued that there's a dynamic between public discourse and what research endeavors occur, hence why I raised apprehensions in a fast-approval world with drugs such as Aducanumab and Lecanemab which may be based on fraudulent data and show minimal effectiveness for something that costs nearly $30k/year, comes with risk of serious adverse reactions, and only minimally reduces decline in cognition. Yet everyone wants a treatment for Alzheimer's, and so the public yells for it and the scientists follow suit.
CRISPR sounds fascinating but I keep forgetting what it actually does. The same with CAR-T. I watched a lecture on it once and found it so fascinating but then completely forgot what it was...
That would be interesting to consider. I'd argue that I'm a guppy in a lake relative to everyone who's out there. The problem is that even covering this bill may make people critical of you even if you raise good points (not saying my points are good, but just ones I've personally raised). Brian Mowrey of Unglossed has written about being able to hold different ideas without them being contradictory, but he's received a lot of flack for even considering that some things may actually provide some protection even if we shouldn't mandate them.
I've raised criticisms of "Team Skeptic" because there's a lot of groupthink that appears to sprout up, which can be discussed using critical thinking and science but instead falls upon appeals to authority, fear porn, and in some ways maintaining some hegemony.
Yes, I have learned alot over the past few years and while I don't retain all the specifics, the more I read and learn (and importantly, discuss with others to cement that learning further), the better my understanding. Thanks for contributing to my education.
Thanks Love! It's hard to determine if people actually learn anything from my posts. I hope that people get a lot out of these posts more than just something reactionary, and something that provides additional perspective. Hopefully Substack as a whole can help provide a new alternative method of education.
Pray tell, what part of my article was disconnected?
In no ways did I argue that GMO's were inherently safe if that's what you're implying, and it makes me question how much of my article you actually read before commenting.
Upon looking at that link it is based off of this paper, which raised controversies although I wouldn't be above inferring that incentives were done to have the article removed:
The authors themselves commented in a remark that their work wasn't looking specifically at tumorgenesis, but at long-term risk of Roundup exposure, and they noted that tumors appeared in their mice unexpectedly.
They also noted that someone from Monsanto joined the review board, and that a study that showed no serious effects with Roundup exposure was strangely allowed to remain although that study also followed the same methodology as the retracted study.
"In my own writings I have stayed away from using the term “gene therapy” because it runs into the issue of a term of art being used colloquially to reflect something different."
the basics: synthetic or natural genetic material is used in gene therapies, that's all what one needs to know to name properly all products based on them, including covid injections.
Agree. Have you considered writing an improved bill and submitting it to the Missouri legislature? You write well and could help them by proposing better language that will lead to transparency of product information. Just a thought.
Sadie has raised that point above and I appreciate the sentiments, however I'm not even sure if I'd be able to offer anything better. I just find a lot of the legalese and jargon in these bills to be so archaic that it becomes hard to parse sometimes. This one was just easier since it's only 2 pages and is intended to add sections rather than to write in completely new laws. There's also, unfortunately the idea of whether raising criticisms would be seen as being good-faith and trying to parse some of the language or be seen as an attack on the "group". I've raised some criticisms of ideas going on in the vaccine skeptic community or whatever this is, but that can sometimes be seen as "undermining the cause" rather than providing a perspective that may disagree but opens up a wider discourse.
I generally wanted to just provide my thoughts and see what others think of this bill, but I'll also see what transpires as well and see what the eventual discourse will be around this bill.
Yes, the wording needs work. But the main point of required labelling is important. There has been research into vaccines being "edible" (for the common good, of course), vaccines being delivered by mosquitos, and there is definitely research into mRNA vaccines for livestock. Why shouldn't labels contain such information? I would want to know and knowing, make my choice.
From lab grown meat to lab milk for babies, the powers that be would love to be free of those pesky labels.
I'm actually for transparency in labeling products, and I hope people didn't get a different impression.
However, because this is a form of legislation being proposed this runs into many issues of language that can either allow for loopholes or other ways around labeling. That's why I brought up the "vaccines in food" argument for fruits and vegetables. You're not going to get mRNA vaccines into plants- you would instead insert the gene and at that point can it be labeled as a gene therapy product or would it fall under GMO? Because GMO's are already so broad would someone even know what it means to be consuming a GMO product? It's one thing if genes are inserted to make plants grow bigger or taste sweeter, it's another if they are made to produce toxins that act as antimicrobial agents which also affect us as consumers.
That's my general problem with this bill. I'm not sure if it just allows for loopholes due to the ambiguities in the language, or if it would really have an effect on the consumer side. Looking at the bill I'm unsure if any scientists actually laid eyes on it to make sure the terminology and use of words was sound (I certainly won't argue that I have it down or that I know in full what I am speaking about).
The core problem with legislating terms such as "gene therapy product" is that it conflates the mechanism of action with the effect.
As you noted, animal and plant husbandry demonstrably alters the genome, but through selective breeding rather than direct genome modification. mRNA inoculations are not direct genome modification (at least, not intentionally) but use genes to activate an immunological response. So which one is the "gene therapy product"?
Which to my mind makes the legislation not so much based on science but a misapprehension of scientific terminology.
I wrote this because I was curious if this legislation wouldn't already be covered as GMO's, and then that depends upon what is occurring. With animals, there's a feasible argument of mRNA vaccines being used to vaccinate these animals and then there's a question of it getting into our food supply, although that comes with the questions on what processing and cooking would do, let alone if animals would do well with being given these vaccines. But there's no way you get mRNA vaccine lettuce or tomatoes because that's not how protein expression works, and in some of these videos/posts I feel like we are close to reaching that point which is incoherent and speaks of a failure of understanding science. Again, you'd need to insert the gene into the plants to make them then express the mRNA to then produce the protein, but then wouldn't that just be considered a GMO at that point?
So that was my general intent with this post as you commented. I'm curious what information is being used and whether anyone actually helped write the bill, whether 3rd party scientists or someone from the FLCCC, but really if anyone checked to see if the language didn't seem funny.
Several places are working on food as vaccine -- https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2021/09/16/grow-and-eat-your-own-vaccines ... I read that Mexico was working on it using tomatoes and no doubt there are many other places lacking common sense as well.
Oh no, this post actually mentions mRNA vaccine lettuce! 👀
As I commented to Peter and mentioned in my post "mRNA vaccine lettuce" is not feasible, and here it looks like they're just playing off of semantics.
They've already been tinkering with plants to produce various bacterial and viral proteins to act as possible "vaccines", and in the edible vaccines link in my article they outline some of the research and limitations. But in order to produce these proteins the plants would have to produce the mRNA, and to do that they would need to have the intended gene inserted into their genome thus making them GMO's.
So essentially all that article is doing is using language that has already been around but going back one step to mention "mRNA" rather than antigen/protein because it's the in-vogue term.
"The project’s goals, made possible by a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, are threefold: showing that DNA containing the mRNA vaccines can be successfully delivered into the part of plant cells where it will replicate, demonstrating the plants can produce enough mRNA to rival a traditional shot, and finally, determining the right dosage. "
This article is just throwing mRNA vaccines around when all they're saying is that they inserted the gene into lettuce and spinach, and even at that point why not just allow the proteins to be expressed?
The only thing I can think of is that rather than synthesize the mRNA themselves they may try to have plants make the mRNA and then isolate it from the plants.
So I think there's a lot of semantic play going on here.
Yes, I do wonder about some of the published science articles.... guess they have to write about x amount of ideas to keep the $ coming in. Because a lot of it doesn't sound workable in the real world -- like why haven't they cured diseases or genetic disorders if their CRISPR et al works so well? But the fact they even think about doing this is crazy .... those cartoon depictions of the mad scientist at his workbench are too close to reality these days. I do appreciate you delving into the Missouri bill... maybe you could offer your advisor services to the authors of it :)
A lot of what is being written is done from the perspective of following what's going on in the cultural milieu. I've argued that there's a dynamic between public discourse and what research endeavors occur, hence why I raised apprehensions in a fast-approval world with drugs such as Aducanumab and Lecanemab which may be based on fraudulent data and show minimal effectiveness for something that costs nearly $30k/year, comes with risk of serious adverse reactions, and only minimally reduces decline in cognition. Yet everyone wants a treatment for Alzheimer's, and so the public yells for it and the scientists follow suit.
CRISPR sounds fascinating but I keep forgetting what it actually does. The same with CAR-T. I watched a lecture on it once and found it so fascinating but then completely forgot what it was...
That would be interesting to consider. I'd argue that I'm a guppy in a lake relative to everyone who's out there. The problem is that even covering this bill may make people critical of you even if you raise good points (not saying my points are good, but just ones I've personally raised). Brian Mowrey of Unglossed has written about being able to hold different ideas without them being contradictory, but he's received a lot of flack for even considering that some things may actually provide some protection even if we shouldn't mandate them.
I've raised criticisms of "Team Skeptic" because there's a lot of groupthink that appears to sprout up, which can be discussed using critical thinking and science but instead falls upon appeals to authority, fear porn, and in some ways maintaining some hegemony.
Yes, I have learned alot over the past few years and while I don't retain all the specifics, the more I read and learn (and importantly, discuss with others to cement that learning further), the better my understanding. Thanks for contributing to my education.
Thanks Love! It's hard to determine if people actually learn anything from my posts. I hope that people get a lot out of these posts more than just something reactionary, and something that provides additional perspective. Hopefully Substack as a whole can help provide a new alternative method of education.
Please get some science first, before writing very concerning science disconnected posts:
https://www.gmoseralini.org/en/
Pray tell, what part of my article was disconnected?
In no ways did I argue that GMO's were inherently safe if that's what you're implying, and it makes me question how much of my article you actually read before commenting.
Upon looking at that link it is based off of this paper, which raised controversies although I wouldn't be above inferring that incentives were done to have the article removed:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
The authors themselves commented in a remark that their work wasn't looking specifically at tumorgenesis, but at long-term risk of Roundup exposure, and they noted that tumors appeared in their mice unexpectedly.
They also noted that someone from Monsanto joined the review board, and that a study that showed no serious effects with Roundup exposure was strangely allowed to remain although that study also followed the same methodology as the retracted study.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514002002
Again, I'm curious how you're making a claim about my disconnected post when all you did was give a link?
"In my own writings I have stayed away from using the term “gene therapy” because it runs into the issue of a term of art being used colloquially to reflect something different."
the basics: synthetic or natural genetic material is used in gene therapies, that's all what one needs to know to name properly all products based on them, including covid injections.